Lyons Et Al 2014 JOB

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.
35, 678–704 (2014)

Published online 10 January 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1917
Research Article
Applying models of employee identity management

across cultures: Christianity in the USA
and South Korea
BRENT LYONS1*, JENNIFER WESSEL2, SONIA GHUMMAN3,
ANN MARIE RYAN4 AND SOOYEOL KIM5
1
Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2
Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, U.S.A.
3
Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
4
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
5
Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, U.S.A.
Summary Identity management refers to the decisions individuals make about how they present their social identities to
others. We examined cross-cultural differences in distancing and affirming identity management strategies of
Christian-identified employees utilizing samples from the USA and South Korea. Religious centrality, risks of
disclosure, pressure to assimilate to organizational norms, and nation were key antecedents of chosen identity
management strategies. Risks of disclosure and pressure to assimilate related to more distancing and less
affirming strategies when religious centrality was low, but nation served as a boundary condition for the
moderating effects of religious centrality. Distancing strategies related to negative outcomes regardless of
religious centrality, but affirming strategies only related to positive outcomes when religious centrality was
low. We discuss how this work contributes to theoretical and practical understanding of identity management
in the workplace and across cultures. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: social identity; identity management; religion; cross-cultural
Choices about how to present one’s membership to social groups must be made by individuals who come to the
workplace with a wide range of minority identities, including racial/ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, political, and
other ascribed and chosen social categories. Over the past two decades, researchers have examined how individuals
manage their social identities in the workplace, including the extent to which they openly affirm (e.g., openly discuss
the identity with co-workers) their identity to make it salient versus distance (e.g., actively hide the identity from co-
workers) themselves from their identity to downplay or conceal an association (e.g., gender, Gardner, Peluchette, &
Clinebell, 1998; sexual orientation, Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007). This research on identity management strategies
has been informed by several theoretical perspectives. Models of positive identity construction (Dutton, Roberts, &
Bednar, 2010) and professional image construction (Roberts, 2005) suggest that individuals are motivated to construct
identities they perceive are viewed positively or as having professional characteristics (i.e., competence and character;
Roberts, 2005). Further, disclosure frameworks draw from stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) and focus on how individ-
uals manage their group identity in order to reduce potential for stigmatization (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005;
Ragins, 2008). However, the empirical application of identity management frameworks has taken place almost
exclusively in North American settings, leaving the role of national culture’s influence on identity management in
the workplace unaddressed. One goal of this research study is to provide an illustration of how cultural context might
influence identity management behaviors at work.
*Correspondence to: Brent Lyons, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5A 1S6.
E-mail: brent.j.lyons@gmail.com
Received 31 January 2013

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 23 November 2013, Accepted 27 November 2013
CHRISTIAN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT 679
Religion is a social identity category that has received less attention from workplace researchers, yet it is
established as affecting attitudes, values, and health (Tarakeshwar, Stanton, & Pargament, 2003). Huntington
(1996) noted that religion would be an important source of conflict in a post-industrial society, particularly in
countries with pronounced religious diversity such as the USA and South Korea. Of particular note, religious iden-
tity has played a significant role historically as well as currently (e.g., Arab–Israeli conflict and Hindu nationalist
movements) in major cultural conflicts worldwide, suggesting that examining the management of this identity in
particular should be done with cultural context in mind. A second goal of this research is to examine the applicability
of established identity management frameworks to religious identities, but to do so while examining how cultural
context might affect that applicability.
To illustrate the role of culture in workplace identity management of religious identities, we examined Christian
identity management in the USA and South Korea. The legal and demographic landscapes of religion in these two
countries have some similarities. First, in both nations, government policies expressly prohibit religious-based
discrimination or harassment in employment practices (see Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 in the USA
and Article V of the Labor Standards Act of 1961 in South Korea). Second, in both countries, Christianity is the
most common religious identity. Nearly 80 percent of US adults identify as a Christian subgroup (51 percent
Protestant, 24 percent Roman Catholic, 2 percent Mormon, and 2 percent other Christian), 2 percent as Jewish, 1
percent as Buddhist, 1 percent as Muslim, 3 percent as unspecified, and 16 percent as none or unaffiliated (Central
Intelligence Agency, 2007, survey). In South Korea, 32 percent of adults identify as a Christian subgroup
(24 percent as Protestant and 8 percent as Roman Catholic), 24 percent as Buddhist, 1 percent as other or
unknown, and 43 percent as none or unaffiliated (Central Intelligence Agency, 2010 survey).
Christianity is common in both the USA and South Korea although it is unclear if identity management
frameworks that have tended to be applied to minority and pervasively stigmatized identities (e.g., sexual minorities)
apply to Christian-identified employees. Stigmatization is a contextual concept (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998;
Goffman, 1963). Even though certain subgroups of Christianity may not be stigmatized pervasively, some
Christian-identified employees may feel inhibited from identifying themselves with their Christian affiliation. For
example, Park (2005) notes that in South Korea, Christianity is seen as the most exclusivist group with little
tolerance of other groups and is associated with Westernization, ruling power, and ethical and moral corruption.
Indeed, in both the USA and South Korea, there are likely instances and environments where Christian-identified
employees are likely to make decisions about how they present their religious identity to others in order
to accrue benefits (e.g., affirmation of beliefs and social support) and avoid costs (e.g., conflict and stigma-
tization) of associating with their religious identity. However, the nature of those decisions might differ
given the historical and political roles of religion in each society as well as differences in cultural values
that might relate to identity expression. After briefly overviewing those differences, we provide an examina-
tion of the applicability of established identity management propositions to the management of Christian
identity in the USA and South Korea.
Religion in the USA and South Korea

While our two focal nations have many similarities, the role of Christianity in each society is historically different.
First, Christianity has been an established religion in the USA since its founding as a nation, with freedom of
religious expression being a core, codified principle (First Amendment to the US Constitution), and the tolerance
of varied subgroups of Christianity was part of early US history (Hout & Fischer, 2001). In contrast, in South Korea,
Christianity is a “missionary religion” and was not part of society until the 1880s where its rise coincided with the
decline of Korean dynasties and the struggle for external domination of Korea by China, Russia, and Japan in the
early 1900s (Lee, 2011). Thus, evangelical Christianity in South Korea has a historical association with Korean
nationalism (against foreign rule) and anticommunism (Lee, 2009, 2011). However, currently, the Christian
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 678–704 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job
680 B. LYONS ET AL.
community in South Korea is associated with the Westernization/modernization of Korea in the last half century,
and Christianity actually is seen as distancing from nationalism (Park, 2005; Lee, 2009).
The USA and South Korea also are markedly different in cultural value dimensions that may influence
individuals’ expression of religion in the workplace, in particular individualism and collectivism (Hofstede,
2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, & Asai, 1988) and
tightness–looseness (Gelfand et al., 2011). First, religious expression is likely to be more valued in individual-
istic cultures that stress self-interests over group interests and encourage individuality, independence, and self-
reliance (Triandis et al., 1988). South Korea is low on Hofstede’s (2001) dimension of individualism
(score of 18) and high on the House et al. (2004) assessment of in-group collectivism (score of 5.54 in Band
A), whereas the USA is high on individualism (score of 91) but low on in-group collectivism (score of 4.25
in Band C). Thus, in collectivist South Korea where particular emphasis is placed on duty and loyalty to
collective goals and the maintenance of group harmony, individual expression of religious identity is likely to
be discouraged more so than in the USA, where individualized expression will be more acceptable. Second,
“loose” societies like the USA have an abundance of weak situations that would allow for more opportunities
for and acceptance of religious self-expression (Gelfand et al., 2011). In “tight” cultures such as South Korea,
individuals who are chronically exposed to stronger situations and stringent behavioral expectations are likely
to perceive their behavioral options to be limited, evaluated, and subject to punishment, relative to individuals
in “loose” cultures. Similarly, Smith, Peterson, and Schwartz (2002) noted that South Korea and the USA
differ in the strength of social norms that govern behavioral decision making. In South Korea, widespread
beliefs regarding what is right (ideological and religious) are stronger drivers of individual behaviors than
in the USA. Therefore, in South Korea, the open expression of religion may deviate from strong norms regard-
ing behavioral suppression and affirmation and may be less common compared to the USA, which is more
accepting of behaviors that may deviate from social norms. A similar conclusion of greater willingness and
ability to express religious beliefs is reached in Schwartz’s (1994, 1999) discussion of egalitarian commitment
and in Hall’s (1976) contrast between low-context and high-context cultures. In both of those cultural
frameworks, differences between the USA and South Korea align with a greater likelihood of religious expres-
sion in the USA.
Overall, the differences in cultural dimensions between the two countries suggest that workplace
religious self-expression would be more likely to occur in the USA compared to South Korea. In South
Korea, social norms that are risk averse, encourage maintenance of group harmony and conformity, and
discourage self-expression will discourage engagement in affirming strategies and promote engagement
in distancing strategies.
Hypothesis 1a: Distancing strategies will be used more by individuals from South Korea than individuals from
the USA.
Hypothesis 1b: Affirming strategies will be used more by individuals from the USA than individuals from
South Korea.
Another specific aim of this current study is to identify whether the antecedent and outcome relationships
proposed as underlying identity management in the workplace apply to the management of Christian identity, and
how these relations are affected by national culture. As the majority of individuals around the world identify with
some religion and Christianity specifically represents 31.5 percent of the global population (Pew Forum on Religion
and Public Life, 2012), it is important to understand when religious identity is communicated (or not communicated)
at work and if the proposed negative consequences of distancing and positive consequences of affirmation apply to
Christian-identified employees. However, before discussing how national culture will affect the proposed relations,
we examine how characteristics of religious identity are expected to influence decisions to distance or affirm one’s
religious affiliation.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Characteristics of Religious Identity

Theoretical frameworks of identity management argue that characteristics of a social identity influence the identity
management strategies that members of the particular social groups utilize (Dutton et al., 2010; Ragins, 2008;
Roberts, 2005). Thus, it is necessary to consider how religious identity is similar and different than other social
identities examined.
Social categories vary in the extent to which its members are believed to be personally responsible for their
stereotypes (Crocker et al., 1998). Those perceived to have more control over their social identity are stigma-
tized more often than those that are perceived to have no control over their social identity (Rodin, Price,
Sanchez, & McElligot, 1989; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). For Christians, being seen as having freely chosen
one’s religious affiliation (Lips-Wiersma & Mills, 2002; Moran, 2007) means that the identity may be stigma-
tized to a greater degree than ascribed identities, which in turn would heighten concern for individuals to
manage their Christian identity.
Unlike many other social categories, religious identity is based in belief and value systems (political
affiliation would be a similar social category). Religion is a set of diverse yet commonly held belief systems
that inform individuals’ world views and guide how individuals interpret their experiences (Ysseldyk,
Matheson, & Anisman, 2010). Individuals of certain religious groups may perceive others to hold misguided
and inaccurate impressions about their belief system. For example, research has demonstrated that Christian-
identified college students (Moran, 2007) and Christian-identified employees (Lips-Wiersma & Mills, 2002)
perceive that their colleagues are ill-informed about their religious beliefs. The identity management strategies
adopted by Christian-identified employees may also serve to educate others about their beliefs and their
social group.
Concerns of religious identity management do not only include potential stigmatization from other religious
or non-religious groups; differences between subgroups of the same religion may also lead one to fear stigma-
tization and influence identity management decisions. For example, historically in the USA, more conservative
subgroups of Christianity, including Evangelical Christians, have been stereotyped as reactionary, myopic,
anti-intellectual, and immoral (Kristof, 2011). Thus, even though the majority of US adults identify as
Christian, evidence suggests that there is potential for conflict and stigmatization between subgroups within
the broader Christian denomination. Likewise, in South Korea, there is a history of political tensions between
Protestantism and other Christian groups (Lee, 2007). A parallel example would be the conflict between the
Sunni and Shia sects of Islam in Pakistan (Behuria, 2004) and Iraq (Nasr & Myers, 2006). In the USA and
South Korea, religious identity management decisions are therefore a matter of not only choosing to disclose
one’s religious identity but also choosing to disclose the “right kind” of religious identity. In line with reason-
ing proposed by Robert’s (2005) model of social identity impression management, Christian-identified
employees who are motivated to construct identities that are viewed positively by others may make decisions
about how to leverage valued aspects of their identity and counteract aspects of their identity that may incite
conflict. Therefore, even in a work context that values Christian beliefs, Christian-identified employees who
are affiliated with a stigmatized Christian subgroup may choose to distance themselves from their religious
identity whereas others who feel their beliefs are consistent with what is valued may choose to affirm their
religious identity.
Further, the beliefs associated with a religious identity also may directly influence identity management
choices. For example, an important objective of some Christian sects (such as Episcopal and Seventh Day
Adventists) is to proselytize beliefs (Moran, 2007; Weisz, Rothbaum, & Blackburn, 1984), suggesting that
affirming may be an identity management strategy adopted for different reasons than for other social cat-
egories. As another example, research has demonstrated that individuals use their religion as a means to
obtain social support and as a coping mechanism in times of stress (McIntosh, Silver, & Wortman,
1993). Therefore, affirming one’s identity may be adopted by some employees due to belief-linked
motivating factors.
DOI: 10.1002/job
682 B. LYONS ET AL.
Antecedents of Religious Identity Management

Now that we have discussed characteristics of religious identity that may affect how Christian-identified employees
manage their identity, we next draw on theory pertaining to the management of invisible identities (Ragins, 2008) to
inform a rationale for examining individual (religious centrality) and contextual (perceived risks of disclosure and
pressure to assimilate to organizational norms) factors contributing to identity management (see Fig. 1 for a pictorial
representation of all hypotheses). We then examine how these factors will relate to identity management differently
in the USA and South Korea.
Religious centrality
Identity centrality (i.e., the importance of an identity to one’s self-concept) is considered an integral individual
difference antecedent of identity management (Ragins, 2008). Self-verification theory posits that people are
motivated to present themselves in a manner that is consistent with how they see themselves in order to verify
coherent self-views (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004). In particular, Swann et al. (2004) argue that individuals
with a central identity are motivated to verify their identity to co-workers when they believe others have
misconstrued their identity. Considering that it is often unclear whether individuals with invisible identities have
the identity, self-verification theory would posit that they should be particularly motivated to affirm their identities.
However, individuals who do not view themselves in terms of that identity (low centrality) are expected to have little
motivation to verify (i.e., affirm) the identity. Indeed, research has demonstrated that sexual minority individuals
who have stronger identification with their sexual orientation are more likely to affirm their sexual orientation
(Button, 2001; Griffith & Hebl, 2002).
Hypothesis 2a: Distancing strategies will be used more by individuals with lower religious centrality than
individuals with higher religious centrality.
Hypothesis 2b: Affirming strategies will be used more by individuals with higher religious centrality than
individuals with lower religious centrality.
Figure 1. Pictorial representation of study model
DOI: 10.1002/job
Perceived risks of disclosure

Individuals with concealable identities may anticipate that disclosure of their identity will involve risks to their work
life (Clair et al., 2005). For example, sexual minority employees who have witnessed or experienced discrimination
are less likely to disclose their sexual identity (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Although research suggests Christians do
fear being negatively judged or mischaracterized based on stereotypes about their beliefs in certain situations
(Moran, 2007), the perceived risks of disclosing Christianity where it is commonly held in the USA and South Korea
may not be as harmful. However, as noted earlier, individuals can experience the need to distance themselves from
commonly held identities in specific contexts (e.g., LaFramboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993), if they feel their
identity is counter to prevailing values (Hewlin, 2009) and if discussing their Christian identity could run the risk
of creating a less-than-desirable professional identity (Roberts, 2005). Thus, in line with disclosure and professional
identity frameworks, individuals who perceive high risks of disclosing their religion to their co-workers may be
more likely to distance from their religious identity.
Hypothesis 3a: Distancing strategies will be used more by individuals who perceive greater risks of disclosure
than individuals who perceive lower risks of disclosure.
Hypothesis 3b: Affirming strategies will be used more by individuals who perceive lower risks of disclosure than
individuals who perceive higher risks of disclosure.
Pressure to assimilate
Social norms of an organization influence an employee’s experience of being different within that organization.
Research has demonstrated that supportive, inclusive, and affirming work climates (Tsui & Gutek, 1999) are
associated with more openness (Ely & Thomas, 2001). For example, sexual minority individuals are more
likely to openly disclose their sexual orientation when they feel their work context is open to such behaviors
and their co-workers are supportive (Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). However, organizations that
have social norms that penalize employees who deviate from the norm are likely to foster climates in which
employees are not open (Roberts, 2005). For example, Hewlin (2009) has demonstrated that employees who
perceive themselves to be at odds with their organization’s norms create “facades of conformity” by
downplaying their own values and presenting themselves in a way that is consistent with acceptable values.
As such, individuals may be unwilling to disclose their religion because strong workplace norms dictating
such expression would be socially unacceptable, even in cases where many individuals may have a similar
religious identity.
Hypothesis 4a: Distancing strategies will be used more by individuals who perceive higher pressure to assimilate
than individuals who perceive lower pressure to assimilate.
Hypothesis 4b: Affirming strategies will be used more by individuals who perceive lower pressure to assimilate
than individuals who perceive higher pressure to assimilate.
Religious centrality as moderator of contextual effects

Religious centrality may also moderate the relationship between identity management strategies and perceived risk
of disclosure and pressure to assimilate. In line with self-verification theory, individuals higher in religious centrality
may be particularly motivated to affirm their religion in order to present themselves in a way that is congruent with
their self-views and will thus be less fazed by the environmental risks of doing so (Ragins, 2008; Swann et al.,
2004). Therefore, we hypothesize the following.
DOI: 10.1002/job
684 B. LYONS ET AL.
Hypothesis 5a: Religious centrality will interact with perceived risks of disclosure such that perceived risks of
disclosure will be less strongly and positively related to distancing strategies for individuals higher on religious
centrality than individuals lower on religious centrality.
Hypothesis 5b: Religious centrality will interact with perceived risks of disclosure such that perceived risks of
disclosure will be less strongly and negatively related to affirming strategies for individuals higher on religious
centrality than individuals lower on religious centrality.
Hypothesis 5c: Religious centrality will interact with pressure to assimilate such that pressure to assimilate will be
less strongly and positively related to distancing strategies for individuals higher on religious centrality than in-
dividuals lower on religious centrality.
Hypothesis 5d: Religious centrality will interact with pressure to assimilate such that pressure to assimilate will be
less strongly and negatively related to affirming strategies for individuals higher on religious centrality than
individuals lower on religious centrality.
National culture as a boundary condition
Although religious centrality is expected to moderate the contextual effects of perceived risk of disclosure and
pressure to assimilate on distancing and affirming strategies, it is expected that the moderating effect of reli-
gious centrality will be different in the USA than it is in South Korea. As described earlier, in South Korea’s
relatively collectivist society, goals of ensuring group harmony (Hofstede, 2001) and achieving long-term
goals (including “guanxi,” which reflects the development of long-standing and trusting relationships; Minkov
& Hofstede, 2012) are likely to supersede individual goals of self-expression, including individual motives for
self-verification. Further, strong situational norms regarding acceptable behavior and social conformity
(Gelfand et al., 2011; Hall, 1976; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Schwartz, 1994, 1999) and adoption of widespread
beliefs (Smith et al., 2002) in South Korea suggest that the stringent social context will limit the array of
acceptable self-expressive behaviors regardless of individual self-verification motives. Therefore, it is expected
that South Korean individuals will be less likely than those in the USA to affirm and more likely to distance
from their religious identity when there is a perceived risk to doing so or a strong pressure to assimilate to a
workplace culture, regardless of the centrality of their religious identity. In contrast, because in the USA,
individual goals are more likely to drive personal behavior and social norms regarding self-expression and
conformity and reliance on widespread beliefs are less stringent, self-verification motives are expected to have
a greater effect on identity management strategies. Therefore, in the USA, pressure to assimilate and perceived
risk of disclosure are expected to be less powerful determinants of identity management strategies when
religious centrality is high compared to low. We will thus test country differences in the moderating effects
of religious centrality on contextual factors.
Hypothesis 6: Religious centrality will moderate the effect of the following: (a) perceived risk of disclosure and (b) pres-
sure to assimilate on distancing in the USA but not in South Korea. When religious centrality is low, the perceived risk of
disclosure and pressure to assimilate will be more strongly and positively related to distancing behavior in the USA,
compared to when religious centrality is high. This moderating effect will not be found for the South Korean sample.
Hypothesis 7: Religious centrality will moderate the effect of the following: (a) perceived risk of disclosure and (b) pres-
sure to assimilate on affirming in the USA but not in South Korea. When religious centrality is low, the perceived risk of
disclosure and pressure to assimilate will be more strongly and negatively related to affirming behavior in the USA,
compared to when religious centrality is high. This moderating effect will not be found for the South Korean sample.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Outcomes of Religious Identity Management

Even though individuals distance themselves from a particular identity to avoid potential discrimination, psy-
chological consequences of distancing are typically thought to be negative. Maintaining the secrecy of a
concealed identity can be cognitively straining and emotionally taxing (Goffman, 1963; Pachankis, 2007),
can prevent individuals from forming strong social support networks (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010), and can lead
to feelings of identity conflict (Roberts, 2005). Distancing from one’s identity has been related to lower ratings
of job satisfaction, lower well-being, a greater likelihood of stress-related physical symptoms, and higher
levels of anxiety and depression (Pachankis, 2007).
Identity management frameworks have also highlighted the potential for positive outcomes of disclosure.
Evidence suggests that affirming one’s identity can yield interpersonal liking, intimacy, and trust within
relationships (Beals, Peplau, & Gable, 2009), provide social support, alleviate psychological and physiolog-
ical stress caused by active concealment (Clair et al., 2005), allow for more cognitive resources to contribute
more fully to the workplace (Creed & Scully, 2000), and foster the development of social relationships
(Roberts, 2005).
These consequences and benefits have been established for invisible identity management but have not been tested
empirically with religious identities. If identity management frameworks apply to all social identities, similar effects
should be expected. Consistent with previous research demonstrating the negative consequences of distancing
(Pachankis, 2007) and benefits of affirming (Beals et al., 2009), we expect that distancing from one’s Christian identity
will be related to negative job and psychological outcomes and affirming one’s identity will be related to positive job
and psychological outcomes.
Hypothesis 8: Use of distancing strategies with regard to one’s Christian identity will be related to the following:
(a) higher turnover intentions; (b) lower job satisfaction; and (c) lower well-being.
Hypothesis 9: Use of affirming strategies with regard to one’s Christian identity will be related to the following:
(a) lower turnover intentions; (b) higher job satisfaction; and (c) higher well-being.
Religious centrality as moderator of identity management effects
Religious centrality may also moderate the relationship between the identity management strategies and
the outcomes of identity management. In line with self-verification theory (Swann et al., 2004), individ-
uals who have a highly central religious identity and who affirm their religious identity will be presenting
themselves in a way that is congruent with their sense of self and will experience satisfaction associated
with self-affirmation (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). They will also be less likely to feel emotional strain at work
associated with misrepresenting themselves and be less likely to want to leave the organization (Hewlin,
2009). On the other hand, individuals who have a highly central religious identity and who distance from
their religious identity will be presenting themselves in a way that is incongruent with their sense of self
and will experience anxiety. The emotional exhaustion associated with misrepresenting oneself at work
(Hewlin, 2009) is expected to lead to decreased satisfaction and increased intentions to leave the organi-
zation. Individuals low in religious centrality will be less concerned about whether they are affirming or
distancing their religious identity, and therefore, outcomes are less likely to be related to identity
management strategies.
Hypothesis 10: Religious centrality will interact with distancing behavior such that distancing will be more
strongly related to the following: (a) higher turnover intentions; (b) lower job satisfaction; and (c) lower well-
being for individuals high on religious centrality than individuals low on religious centrality.
DOI: 10.1002/job
686 B. LYONS ET AL.
Hypothesis 11: Religious centrality will interact with affirming behavior such that affirming will be more strongly
related to the following: (a) lower turnover intentions; (b) higher job satisfaction; and (c) higher well-being for
individuals low on religious centrality than individuals high on religious centrality
Although we make predictions about how national culture affects norms regarding behavioral self-expression, we
do not expect the outcomes of identity management to differ across the USA and South Korea. This is because the
cognitive and emotional costs of misrepresentation are expected to be detrimental regardless of the cultural context.
Indeed, Hewlin (2009) demonstrated that even in organizations with strong norms for the suppression of self-expres-
sion, employees who misrepresented themselves experienced negative psychological outcomes. Further, cross-cul-
tural research has demonstrated that misrepresenting oneself is psychologically taxing in both individualistic
(Pachankis, 2007) and collectivist cultures (e.g., Wong & Tang, 2004).
Method
Preliminary study
Prior to developing a survey of identity management for Christian employees, we conducted a preliminary study to
verify that Christian-identified individuals encounter situations in which they manage that identity in the workplace
and that there is variability in the ways they do so. We surveyed 96 working adults who self-identified as Christians
and who lived in the USA (all but three were from the Midwest USA). These participants were recruited via online
forums explicitly intended for members of Christian denominations or were directly given hard copies of the survey
at local church gatherings. Online (n = 13) and paper-and-pencil (n = 81) participants were asked to think of an
incident that took place at work in the last 12 months in which their own religion was the focus of the interaction
and to describe it in five or more sentences.
Seventy-two of participants (or 77 percent) described an incident. Almost half (49.3 percent) of the
incidents described were coded by the researchers as neutral (neither positive nor negative), 35.2 percent
as positive, and 15.5 percent as negative. A summary table of coding frequencies and examples of incidents
is available from the authors upon request. The majority of incidents were categorized as aimed at providing
information and/or educating others about their religion (43.7 percent). For a specific example, one partici-
pant noted:
I’ve had multiple interactions with a coworker (who is also a close friend) discussing Proposition 8 [a
California ballot proposition providing that marriage is only between a man and woman] and the large
number of supporters who are members of the Mormon church. She expressed surprise at finding that
one of the Church’s high profile members, Steve Young, had donated money against the proposition and
I informed her that the church did not donate money as an organization and that donations from Mormons
were at the level of individual discretion. The conversation was respectful and it was between just the two
of us in her office.
Several more incidents were aimed at using their religion to seek and/or provide support (28.2 percent). For
example, one participant noted:
My coworker’s mother died recently. When talking with my coworker; I brought up the topic and we discussed
how comforting it is to have faith and to know that her mother had a deep faith. We talked about how different
death must be to someone who doesn’t have religious faith. We were in her area that is fairly private. My
colleague is Catholic and I know that she and her mother were “religious” so I was not hesitant to bring the topic
up. We pretty much agreed in the discussion.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Some incidents involving religion were also described as opposing or unsupportive (16.9 percent). For example,
one participant noted:
An ongoing difficulty I have with co-workers is their habit of using God’s name in a derogatory way. In general
conversation, people very often will say in frustration or anger, phrases I consider extremely offensive, e.g. “G.
D., J.C…” They sometimes “apologize” in my presences, sometimes not. I have shared that I don’t wish to hear
this kind of language, yet it continues consistently.
We also asked participants to indicate how they managed their identity in each incident by selecting if they distanced
themselves from their religion or affirmed their religion. In terms of strategy adopted, 64 (90 percent) reported how they
managed their identity in response to the incident. Affirming was the most common response (86.0 percent) compared to
distancing (14.0 percent). Overall, these results provide evidence that Christian-identified employees do indeed
encounter situations in which they engage in distancing and affirming identity management strategies, even if mostly
affirmative in nature. In the main study that follows, we explore antecedents and outcomes of the identity management
strategies utilized by Christians in the USA and South Korea.
Participants
The sampling strategy for the main study was identical to that of the preliminary study (see above). Participants for
the main study were from two samples: working adults in the USA (N = 164) and working adults in South Korea
(N = 428). All but seven participants in the US sample resided in the Midwest region of the USA. We excluded
participants employed at religious organizations, which left us with a final N for our sample of 456 (USA = 151;
South Korea = 305; mean age = 44.18 years, SD = 11.62; 57 percent male). For data collection in South Korea, a
large number of church employees and non-church employees attended data collection events following church
services. The large number of people made it difficult to ensure that mostly non-church employees participated in
the survey until data collection had been completed after which we excluded 123 of the South Korean participants.
Of the remaining participants, 58 percent of US participants and 100 percent of the South Korean participants
completed the paper-and-pencil version of the survey, whereas the remainder completed the survey online.
US participants were 88 percent White (6 percent Asian, 3 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Black or African-American,
1 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1 percent multiracial). One hundred percent of South Korean par-
ticipants identified as Korean. Mean tenure at participants’ current organization was 10 years and 4 months (SD = 9
years 10 months). Participants in the USA reported affiliations with seven Christian denominations (37 percent
Catholic, 21 percent Methodist, 19 percent Lutheran, 9 percent Episcopal, 7 percent Baptist, 3 percent
nondenominational, <1 percent Presbyterian, and <1 percent Pentecostal), and the majority (81.6 percent) of
participants in South Korea indicated their religion to be Presbyterian with the remainder being Methodist (3 percent),
Baptist (2 percent), and nondenominational (11 percent).
Procedure
For participants in South Korea, all measures were translated into Korean and back-translated into English in
order to ensure consistency in meaning across languages. The back-translation process occurred in several
sequential steps. First, one of the authors who is fluent in Korean translated the survey to Korean. Next, a
senior international undergraduate student from South Korea was hired to translate the Korean survey into
US English. The researchers then evaluated this back-translated survey for any inconsistencies in meaning
or interpretations between the original survey and the back-translated survey. Inconsistencies were rectified
via discussion between the researchers and the Korean author to determine ways that the Korean survey
DOI: 10.1002/job
688 B. LYONS ET AL.
could be re-worded so that meaning across languages remained consistent. This iterative process of discus-
sion and back-translation continued until the researchers were satisfied that the survey content was consistent
across languages.
Tests of measurement invariance

In order to assess if measures of the antecedent, identity management, and outcome variables can be used
equivalently and compared across the US and South Korean samples, we assessed multiple-group measurement
invariance (Bollen, 1989) using MPLUS version 6.11. As one of the primary goals of the current study is to compare
the USA and South Korea on the measured variables, items were dropped based on evidence of invariance across
groups. Decisions regarding which items to drop were informed based on the modification indices in MPLUS output
as well as the indicator content and its relevance to the overarching construct. Our goal was to ensure that we did not
gain invariance at the expense of content validity. We assessed measurement invariance by comparing the fit indices
of hierarchically nested confirmatory factor analyses (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Our evaluation of fit estimates
was based on recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1998). Evidence of acceptable fit was inferred from RMSEA
scores less than 0.10 and CFI and TLI scores greater than 0.90. Table 1 presents the fit estimates for the models
in the invariance hierarchy.
For the two identity management measures, affirming and distancing, the configural (baseline) model
demonstrated adequate fit as RMSEA was less than 0.10 and CFI and TLI were above 0.90. Even though
the chi-square test for model fit was significant, we were cautious in interpreting the chi-square because it
is sensitive to sample size (Hu & Bentler, 1998). We thus went ahead and estimated the metric model. The
difference in fit between the configural model and metric model was significant (Δχ 2[11] = 25.62, p < .05), in-
dicating that there is some nonchance lack of invariance. However, as researchers have noted (Marsh, 1995),
statistical tests of invariance have the same limitations as statistical tests of confirmatory models in that they
can also be a priori false when sample size is sufficiently large. Therefore, we also used fit indices to assess
for invariance (Marsh, 1995). As Table 1 indicates, we found evidence of metric invariance for the identity
management measures. Using a similar process, we also found evidence of invariance when we constrained
the model to scalar invariance and strict invariance. Finally, when the factor variances and covariances were
constrained to be equal across groups, the models also fit. Therefore, the results suggest that there is some
evidence of invariance in the measurement and structure of affirming and distancing identity management
strategies across the US and South Korean samples.
We adopted a similar strategy for the assessment of measurement invariance of the antecedent and outcome
measures (see Table 1). In terms of pressure to assimilate to organizational norms, results suggest evidence of
configural, metric, scalar, strict, and factor invariance across groups. For perceived risks of disclosing beliefs, results
suggest evidence of configural, metric, and scalar invariance. However, changes in model fit (Δχ 2[15] = 150.14,
p < .001) and fit indices—RMSEA greater than 0.10 and CFI and TLI less than 0.90—suggested that there is no ev-
idence of strict invariance or invariance of factor variances across groups. In terms of religious centrality, results
suggest evidence of configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance, but RMSEA and CFI fit indices indicated poor
fit for the invariance of factor invariance across groups. Finally, results suggest adequate evidence of configural,
metric, scalar, strict, and factor variance invariance for the outcome measures, job satisfaction, turnover intentions,
and well-being. Given this evidence of measurement invariance across US and South Korean samples, we proceeded
to hypothesis testing. The final scales used for hypothesis testing are described below.
Measures
Measures were completed in the order listed below. All scales were measured using a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) unless otherwise noted. Individual scores on each measure were
computed by averaging scores on scale items.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Tests of measurement invariance for all study measures across US and South Korean samples.
Scale Model χ 2(N = 456) df Δχ 2a Δdfdiffb CFI TLI RMSEA (CI)
Identity Management Configural (baseline) 200.28** 128 0.96 0.95 0.05 (0.03, 0.06)
(affirm + distance) Metric 225.90** 139 25.62* 11 0.95 0.95 0.05 (0.04, 0.07)
Scalar 321.10** 152 120.82** 24 0.91 0.91 0.07 (0.06, 0.08)
Strict 358.38** 165 158.10** 37 0.90 0.90 0.07 (0.06, 0.08)
Factor variance 358.72** 167 0.34 2 0.90 0.91 0.07 (0.06, 0.08)
Factor covariance 359.01 168 0.63 3 0.90 0.91 0.07 (0.06, 0.08)
Pressure to assimilate Configural (baseline) 38.59** 18 0.97 0.95 0.07 (0.04, 0.1)
Metric 49.20** 23 10.61 5 0.96 0.95 0.07 (0.04, 0.1)
Scalar 59.12** 29 20.53* 11 0.96 0.96 0.07 (0.04, 0.1)
Strict 73.86** 35 35.27* 17 0.94 0.95 0.07 (0.05, 0.09)
Factor variance 74.16** 36 0.30 1 0.95 0.95 0.07 (0.05, 0.09)
Perceived risks of Configural (baseline) 3.48 10 1.00 1.00 0.00 (0.00, 0.01)
disclosing beliefs Metric 4.31 14 0.83 4 1.00 1.00 0.00 (0.00, 0.01)
Scalar 43.08** 19 39.60** 9 0.96 0.96 0.08 (0.04, 0.11)
Strict 153.62** 25 150.14** 15 0.81 0.84 0.16 (0.13, 0.18)
Factor variance 187.95** 26 34.33** 1 0.76 0.81 0.17 (0.15, 0.20)
Religious centrality Configural (baseline) 22.74* 10 0.97 0.95 0.08 (0.03, 0.11)
Metric 28.15* 14 5.41 4 0.97 0.96 0.07 (0.03, 0.10)
Scalar 68.26** 19 45.52** 9 0.91 0.91 0.10 (0.08, 0.13)
Strict 76.11** 24 53.37** 14 0.91 0.92 0.10 (0.07, 0.12)
Factor variance 89.61** 25 13.50** 1 0.88 0.91 0.11 (0.08, 0.13)
Job satisfaction Configural (baseline) 0.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
Metric 0.52 2 0.52 2 1.00 1.00 0.00 (0.00, 0.08)
Scalar 20.33* 5 20.33* 5 0.98 0.97 0.11 (0.06, 0.17)
Strict 30.90** 8 30.90** 8 0.96 0.97 0.11 (0.07, 0.16)
Factor variance 31.09** 9 0.19 1 0.96 0.98 0.10 (0.07, 0.15)
Turnover intentions Configural (baseline) 0.00 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
Metric 3.17 2 3.17 2 1.00 0.99 0.05 (0.00, 0.15)
Scalar 11.06 5 11.06 5 0.98 0.98 0.07 (0.00, 0.13)
Strict 21.40* 8 21.40* 8 0.96 0.97 0.09 (0.04, 0.13)
Factor variance 23.87* 9 2.47 1 0.96 0.97 0.09 (0.04, 0.13)
Well-being Configural (baseline) 25.05* 10 0.99 0.98 0.08 (0.04, 0.12)

Metric 34.10* 14 9.05 4 0.99 0.98 0.08 (0.05, 0.11)
Scalar 76.75** 19 51.70** 9 0.96 0.95 0.11 (0.09, 0.14)
Strict 90.73** 24 65.68** 14 0.95 0.96 0.11 (0.09, 0.14)
Factor variance 92.74** 25 2.01 1 0.95 0.96 0.11 (0.09, 0.13)
CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; CI = 90% confidence interval.
2
a
Difference in χ between given model and baseline model.
b
Difference in degrees of freedom between given model and baseline model.
*p < .05,
**p < .001.
Antecedents to identity management

Pressure to assimilate (US α = .81, South Korea α = .79) was assessed via six items adapted from the Cultural Congruity Scale
(Gloria & Robinson-Kurpius, 1996) in which participants indicated the extent to which they experience pressure to conform to
organizational norms regarding religion (e.g., “I feel that my religious beliefs are incompatible with other colleagues”).
DOI: 10.1002/job
690 B. LYONS ET AL.
Perceived risks of disclosing beliefs (US α = .83, South Korea α = .82) was assessed via five items (adapted from
Ragins et al., 2007) in which participants indicated the extent to which they perceive risks associated with disclosing
their religious beliefs (e.g., “If I disclose my religious beliefs to everyone at work, I would be excluded from some of
my coworkers”).
In order to determine if the measurement of pressure to assimilate and risks of disclosure represented two distinct
factors, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA fit indices indicated that the two-factor
structure fit the data well: χ 2(N = 456) = 169.58 (p < .05), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07 with a 90%
confidence interval ranging from 0.06 to 0.08.
Religious centrality (US α = .72, South Korea α = .77) was assessed with five items adapted from the
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997) in which
participants indicated the extent to which they identify with their religion (e.g., “My religion is an important
reflection of who I am”).
Identity management strategies

Distancing and affirming strategies were assessed by adapting items from Button’s (2004) identity management
inventory to fit religion. Participants indicated the extent to which they manage their religious identity. Distancing
(US α = .80, South Korea α = .86) was assessed with eight items, and affirming (US α = .70, South Korea α = .76) was
assessed with five items. Participants had a score on each strategy and could be high or low on both strategies. Items
used to assess distancing and affirming are listed in the Appendix.
Outcomes of identity management

Job satisfaction (US α = .80, South Korea α = .81) was assessed with the three-item Overall Job Satisfaction Scale
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) in which participants indicated their agreement with items assessing
their general job satisfaction (e.g., “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”).
Turnover intentions (US α = .70, South Korea α = .80) were assessed with three items (Cammann et al., 1983) in
which participants indicated their intentions to leave their organization (e.g., “I intend to leave this organization
within the next year”).
Well-being (US α = .90, South Korea α = .91) was assessed with the five-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) in which participants indicated their general satisfaction with their life (e.g., “In most
ways, my life is close to my ideal”).
Results
Descriptive statistics of study variables for both the USA and South Korea are displayed in Table 2. There were no
significant differences across administration format (online or paper and pencil) on any of the independent or
dependent variables (p’s > .06).
Antecedents of identity management

Utilizing hierarchical multiple regression analyses, we predicted engagement in distancing and affirming
identity management strategies with risk of disclosure, pressure to assimilate, religious centrality, and country
(see Table 3a and 3b). The main effects were included in the first model, the two-way interactions (religious
centrality as the moderator of direct effects of risks of disclosure and pressure to assimilate and country as the
moderator of the direct effects of religious centrality, risk of disclosure, and pressure to assimilate) in the sec-
ond model, and the three-way interactions (between country, religious centrality, and risk of disclosure or
pressure to assimilate) in the third model. Previous research has suggested that women are more likely to
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender .29* .14* .17* .16* .08 .03 .04 .25* .07
2. Age .12 .06 .08 .10 .17* .07 .04 .02 .28*
3. Risk of disclosure .06 .02 .31* .10 .13* .10 .06 .34* .08
4. Pressure to assimilate .08 .00 .33* .16* .09 .07 .00 .40* .16*
5. Centrality .01 .07 .02 .02 .14 .23* .26* .35* .24*
6. Turnover intentions .02 .15 .04 .04 .08 .66* .51* .23* .16*
7. Job satisfaction .01 .03 .06 .08 .17* .36* .62* .24* .17*
8. Well-being .05 .05 .00 .14 .02 .20* .34* .25* .18*
9. Distancing .00 .04 .30* .26* .27* .12 .22* .27* .34*
10. Affirming .13 .14 .13 .21* .28* .05 .12 .06 .40*
USA
M 0.55 48.12 2.38 1.97 5.30 2.88 5.73 4.92 2.08 4.73
SD 0.51 13.63 0.95 1.02 1.06 1.77 1.34 1.57 0.88 1.13
South Korea
M 0.61 42.36 2.00 2.01 5.27 2.94 5.18 4.49 2.24 4.35
SD 0.53 10.08 0.73 1.02 1.22 1.77 1.37 1.30 0.94 1.19
US correlations on bottom of diagonal and South Korean correlations on top of diagonal; all measures have a scale range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree); gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.
*p < .05.
Table 3a. Distancing identity management strategies as outcomes of antecedents.

Distancing
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B SE t B SE t B SE t
Gender 0.12 0.08 2.72* 0.11 0.08 2.50* 0.11 0.08 2.51*
Age 0.02 0.04 0.54 0.02 0.04 0.52 0.02 0.04 0.53
Country 0.11 0.10 2.54* 0.11 0.10 2.51* 0.10 0.09 2.29*
Risk to disclose 0.23 0.05 5.15* 0.23 0.06 3.84* 0.22 0.06 3.58*
Pressure to assimilate 0.25 0.04 5.61* 0.28 0.05 5.07* 0.26 0.05 4.93*
Religious centrality 0.25 0.05 5.83* 0.29 0.05 5.79* 0.32 0.05 6.23*
Religious Centrality * Risk to Disclose 0.05 0.05 1.12 0.12 0.06 2.13*
Religious Centrality * Pressure to 0.05 0.04 1.12 0.11 0.05 2.24*
Assimilate
Country * Risk to Disclose 0.01 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.01
Country * Pressure to Assimilate 0.05 0.10 0.97 0.07 0.10 1.34
Country * Religious Centrality 0.08 0.11 1.57 0.06 0.11 1.28
Country * Religious Centrality * Risk to 0.11 0.10 1.96*
Disclose
Country * Religious Centrality * Pressure to 0.13 0.09 2.52*
Assimilate
R2 .27 .29 .31
Adjusted R2 .26 .27 .29
F(Model 1 = 6, Model 2 = 13, 26.02* 14.90* 13.96*
Model 3 = 13; 423)
Coefficients are standardized beta weights. Gender: 0 = female, male = 1; country: USA = 1, South Korea = 0.
*p < .05.
DOI: 10.1002/job
692 B. LYONS ET AL.
Table 3b. Affirming identity management strategies as outcomes of antecedents.

Affirming
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B SE t B SE t B SE t
Gender 0.08 0.09 1.64 0.08 0.09 1.62 0.08 0.09 1.64
Age 0.22 0.05 4.60* 0.22 0.05 4.59* 0.22 0.05 4.72*
Country 0.11 0.10 2.37* 0.12 0.10 2.39* 0.10 0.10 2.19*
Risk to disclose 0.05 0.05 1.01 0.04 0.07 0.61 0.03 0.07 0.45
Pressure to assimilate 0.11 0.05 2.38 0.10 0.06 1.63 0.09 0.06 1.47
Religious centrality 0.20 0.05 4.40 0.20 0.06 3.49* 0.20 0.06 3.66*
Religious Centrality * Risk to Disclose 0.05 0.05 1.00 0.03 0.07 0.44
Religious Centrality * Pressure to 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.07 0.06 1.33
Assimilate
Country * Risk to Disclose 0.02 0.10 0.23 0.02 0.10 0.32
Country * Pressure to Assimilate 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.01 0.10 0.23
Country * Religious Centrality 0.02 0.12 0.32 0.02 0.12 0.46
Country * Religious Centrality * Risk to 0.03 0.11 0.54
Disclose
Country * Religious Centrality * Pressure to 0.16 0.10 2.88*
Assimilate
R2 .15 .16 .18 .15
Adjusted R2 .14 .14 .15 .14
F(Model 1 = 6, Model 2 = 11, 12.53* 6.07* 12.53*
Model 3 = 13; 423)
Coefficients are standardized beta weights.
*p < .05.
self-disclose than men (Dindia & Allen, 1992), and age differences in disclosure have been found with older
individuals being more likely to disclose than younger individuals (Sinha, 1972), and thus, we controlled for
participant gender and age in all reported analyses.
Direct effects
Individuals in South Korea were more likely to engage in distancing strategies than those in the USA
(B = 0.10, p < .05), whereas individuals in the USA were more likely to engage in affirming strategies than
individuals in South Korea (B = 0.10, p < .05). H1a and H1b were both supported. Religious centrality was
significantly and negatively related to distancing (B = 0.32, p < .05), providing support for H2a. Religious
centrality was significantly and positively related to affirming (B = 0.19, p < .05), providing support for H2b.
Risk of disclosure was significantly and positively related to distancing (B = 0.22, p < .05), but risk of disclo-
sure was not significantly related to affirming (B = 0.03, n.s.). Therefore, H3a was supported, but H3b was
not supported. Pressure to assimilate was significantly and positively related to distancing (B = 0.26, p < .05),
providing support for H4a. Pressure to assimilate was not significantly related to affirming (B = 0.09, n.s.).
H4b was not supported.
Two-way interactions
The interaction between religious centrality and risk of disclosure was significantly related to distancing
(B = 0.12, p < .05) but not to affirming (B = 0.03, n.s.). Simple slopes analyses indicated that when religious
centrality is both high (+1 SD above mean) and low ( 1 SD below mean), risk of disclosure is significantly
DOI: 10.1002/job
and positively related to distancing, with a stronger positive association when religious centrality is low
(B = 0.26, p < .001) as opposed to high (B = 0.19, p < .05). The interaction between religious centrality and
pressure to assimilate was significantly related to distancing (B = 0.11, p < .05) but not to affirming
(B = 0.07, n.s.). Simple slopes analyses indicated that when religious centrality is both high (+1 SD above
mean) and low ( 1 SD below mean), pressure to assimilate is significantly and positively related to
distancing, with a stronger positive association when religious centrality is low (B = 0.30, p < .001) as opposed
to high (B = 0.19, p < .05). Therefore, it appears as though risk of disclosure and pressure to assimilate are
more influential in increasing the adoption of distancing, but not affirming, strategies for individuals low in
religious centrality. These findings are supportive of H5a and H5c, but H5b and H5d were not supported.
However, the interpretation of these results is qualified by the three-way interaction discussed in the
next section.
Three-way interactions
The interaction between country, religious centrality, and risk of disclosure (B = 0.11, p < .05) and the
interaction between country, religious centrality, and pressure to assimilate were significantly related to
distancing (B = 0.13, p < .05). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that for US individuals, when religious
centrality is low ( 1 SD below mean), risk of disclosure (B = 0.13, n.s.) and pressure to assimilate
(B = 0.01, n.s.) are not significantly related to distancing. But when religious centrality is high (+1 SD above
mean), risk of disclosure (B = 0.29, p < .05) and pressure to assimilate (B = 0.25, p < .05) are significantly
and positively related to distancing. For South Korean individuals, when religious centrality is low, risk
of disclosure (B = 0.35, p < .001) and pressure to assimilate (B = 0.37, p < .001) are significantly and
positively related to distancing. But when religious centrality is high, risk of disclosure (B = 0.08, n.s.)
and pressure to assimilate (B = 0.14, n.s.) are not significantly related to distancing. These results are incon-
sistent with H6a and H6b. We did not expect to find a moderating effect of religious centrality on risk of
disclosure and pressure to assimilate for South Korea, and we did not expect that risk of disclosure and
pressure to assimilate would be related to distancing for US individuals high in religious centrality. A
graphical representation of H6b is depicted in Figure 2. Due to space limitations, the graphical representa-
tion of H6a is excluded, although it is similar to Figure 2.
The interaction between country, religious centrality, and pressure to assimilate (but not for risks of disclosure
[B = 0.03, n.s.]) was significantly related to affirming (B = 0.16, p < .05). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that
for US individuals, when religious centrality is low, pressure to assimilate (B = 0.12, n.s.) is not significantly related
to affirming. But when religious centrality is high, pressure to assimilate (B = 0.34, p < .05) is significantly and
negatively related to affirming. For South Korean individuals, pressure to assimilate was not related to affirming
when religious centrality was low (B = 0.16, n.s.) or high (B = 0.01, n.s.). H7a and H7b were not supported.
See Figure 3 for a graphical representation.
Outcomes of identity management

Using hierarchical multiple regression, we regressed turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and well-being onto
distancing and affirming identity management strategies (see Table 4). Model 1 included the direct effects, and
Model 2 included the interactions between religious centrality and affirming and distancing.
Direct effects
Distancing significantly and positively related to turnover intentions (B = 0.22, p < .05) and significantly and
negatively related to job satisfaction (B = 0.21, p < .05) and well-being (B = 0.23, p < .05). H8a, H8b, and
H8c were supported. Affirming did not significantly relate to turnover intentions (B = 0.04, n.s.), job satisfaction
(B = 0.08, n.s.), or well-being (B = 0.03, n.s.). H9a, H9b, and H9c were not supported.
DOI: 10.1002/job
694 B. LYONS ET AL.
Low pressure to High pressure to

assimilate assimilate
(a) U.S.

(b) South Korea

Figure 2. Interaction between country (USA and South Korea), religious centrality, and pressure to assimilate with distancing as
outcome (N = 456)
Two-way interactions
The interaction between religious centrality and distancing did not significantly relate to turnover intentions
(B = 0.07, n.s.), job satisfaction (B = 0.03, n.s.), or well-being (B = 0.03, n.s.). H10a, H10b, and H10c were not
supported. However, the interaction between religious centrality and affirming significantly related to turnover
intentions (B = 0.12, p < .05), job satisfaction (B = 0.11, p < .05), and well-being (B = 0.12, p < .05). Simple
slopes analysis indicated that when religious centrality is low ( 1 SD below mean), affirming is significantly and
negatively related to turnover intentions (B = 0.15, p < .05) and significantly and positively related to job satisfaction
(B = 0.19, p < .05) and well-being (B = 0.13, p < .05). When religious centrality is high, affirming is not significantly
related to turnover intentions (B = 0.08, n.s.), job satisfaction (B = 0.02, n.s.), or well-being (B = 0.08, n.s.). Results
were thus inconsistent with H11a, H11b, and H11c. See Figure 4 for a graphical representation.
Discussion
Contributions to theory
By considering religious identity management in both the USA and South Korea, we shed light on how
national culture can serve as a boundary condition for models of identity management. Further, given that
religion represents a unique social identity (e.g., one that is based on a belief system and is seen to be
DOI: 10.1002/job

(a) U.S.

(b) South Korea

Figure 3. Interaction between country (USA and South Korea), religious centrality, and pressure to assimilate with affirming as
outcome (N = 456)
Table 4. Outcomes of identity management strategies.
Turnover intentions
Model 1 Model 2
B SE t B SE t
Gender 0.08 0.09 1.66 0.08 0.09 1.73
Age 0.14 0.05 2.76* 0.14 0.05 2.78*
Country 0.05 0.10 1.10 0.05 0.10 1.01
Religious centrality 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.00
Distancing 0.20 0.05 3.90* 0.22 0.05 4.14*
Affirming 0.04 0.05 0.85 0.04 0.05 0.69
Religious Centrality * Distancing 0.07 0.05 1.28
Religious Centrality * Affirming 0.12 0.05 2.50*
R2 .07 .09
Adjusted R2 .06 .07
F(Model 1 = 6, Model 2 = 8; 438) 5.90* 5.31*
Coefficients are standardized beta weights.
*p < .05.
DOI: 10.1002/job
696 B. LYONS ET AL.
controllable), we also extend the generalizability of identity management research to social identities with sim-
ilar distinct characteristics and also those that are commonly held. By doing so, we contribute to a broader
understanding of religion in the workplace by examining factors that contribute to, and outcomes of, religious
identity management. For our results, we found some consistency with prior research but also some divergence
in findings, including differences between the USA and South Korea. Our research reflects an important
concern for many religious-identified employees regarding the integration (or lack thereof) of their religious
identity into their work life (Tracey, 2012).
In terms of cultural differences in the usage of identity management strategies, individuals in South
Korea, where avoiding conflict and deviating from the collective group is less normative, were more likely
to distance themselves from their religion compared to individuals in the USA (H1a), where personal goals
of self-expression and deviating from the collective is more normative (Gelfand et al., 2011; Hall, 1976;
Hofstede, 2001; Kim & Nam, 1998; Kim, Pan, & Park, 1998; Schwartz, 1994, 1999; Triandis et al.,
1988). Likewise, individuals in the USA were more likely to openly express their religion than individuals
in South Korea (H1b).
In terms of proposed antecedents of identity management strategies, in the USA and South Korea, self-
verification motives, perceptions of risks of disclosure, and perceptions of organizational norms regarding
religious expression appear to be important influences on choices of identity management strategies. Such
results are consistent with models of stigma disclosure (Clair et al., 2005; Ragins, 2008). Specifically, partic-
ipants for whom their religion is a central part of their overall identity were less likely to engage in distancing
strategies (H2a) and more likely to engage in affirming strategies (H2b). Those who perceived risks of disclo-
sure were more likely to engage in distancing strategies (H3a), and those who reported feeling pressure to
assimilate to organizational norms were more likely to engage in distancing strategies (H4a). Unexpectedly,
pressure to assimilate was unrelated to affirming strategies (H4b). This suggests that organizational climates
that are noninclusive pressure individuals to conform not by reducing their self-expression (affirming) but
by encouraging them to conceal their identity (distancing). Therefore, even though individuals may be
motivated to affirm their identity, contextual pressures may pose a threat that encourages distancing. Although
risks of disclosure did relate to distancing strategies, they did not relate to engagement in affirming strategies,
Table 4. (Continued).
Job satisfaction Well-being
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
B SE t B SE t B SE t B SE t
0.07 0.09 1.57 0.08 0.09 1.67 0.07 0.09 1.50 0.07 0.08 1.60
0.00 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.23 0.01 0.05 0.19
0.16 0.10 3.43* 0.16 0.10 3.51* 0.17 0.10 3.58* 0.17 0.10 3.66*
0.05 0.05 1.01 0.03 0.05 0.58 0.13 0.05 2.65* 0.11 0.05 2.12
0.20 0.05 3.99* 0.21 0.05 4.13* 0.22 0.05 4.39* 0.23 0.05 4.52*
0.09 0.05 1.73 0.08 0.05 1.62 0.03 0.05 0.65 0.03 0.05 0.54
0.03 0.05 0.66 0.03 0.05 0.66
0.11 0.05 2.35* 0.12 0.04 2.41*
.11 .12 .13 .14
.09 .10 .11 .12
8.52* 7.13* 10.36* 8.56*
DOI: 10.1002/job
Low affirming High affirming
Figure 4. Interaction between religious centrality and affirming with turnover intentions (a), job satisfaction (b), and well-being
(c) as outcomes (N = 456)
which was unexpected (H3b). However, this finding underscores how risks of disclosure (e.g., potential for
discrimination, harassment, and ostracism) may be less concerning for commonly held social identities in
the work context.
Religious centrality moderated the relationship between the contextual factors (risk of disclosure and
pressure to assimilate) and distancing and affirming strategies (H5a–H5d), although these moderating effects
differed across cultures in unexpected ways. In the USA, perceived risks and pressure to assimilate were
more strongly related to engagement in distancing, and pressure to assimilate more strongly related to
affirming, when religious centrality was high compared to low (H6a, H6b, H7a, and H7b). Contrary to
our expectations based in self-verification theory, these results are consistent with research demonstrating
that highly identified individuals are more sensitive and reactive to contextual indicators of threat that
may represent potential stigmatization (Operario & Fiske, 2001; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). This also under-
scores the notion that perceived risks of disclosure may not affect affirming choices for more commonly
DOI: 10.1002/job
698 B. LYONS ET AL.
held identities. In looking more closely at Figures 2 and 3 for the US sample, tendencies to engage in
affirming and distancing strategies are similar unless perceived risks (for distancing) and pressure to assim-
ilate are low and religious centrality is high, in which case affirming is more common and distancing is less
common. In the individualistic USA, goals related to the individual as opposed to the collective are stronger
determinants of behavior (Triandis et al., 1988), and maintenance of collective harmony is less of a concern
than personal well-being (Hofstede, 2001). Affirming a Christian identity in the workplace could be seen as
counter to individual goals for US Christians, unless it is a central part of their identity (i.e., expression sup-
ports self-verification goals) and the context supports religious expression (i.e., expression does not hinder
professional goals).
However, in South Korea, perceived risks of disclosure and pressure to assimilate were more strongly
related to engagement in distancing strategies when religious centrality was low compared to high (H6a and
H6b). Religious centrality did not affect the relationship between perceived risks or pressure to assimilate
and affirming strategies in South Korea (H7a and H7b). These results were unexpected. It could be that South
Korean Christian-identified employees high in religious centrality may consider their religion to be a part of
their broader collective identity to which they are loyal (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis et al., 1988), and as such,
they may be unlikely to distance themselves from that identity in any context. Individuals low in religious
centrality may not consider their religion to be an important part of their collective identity and in turn
may display less loyalty to religion. Instead, they may be more attentive to contextual cues and social norms
of conformity in their organization and want to avoid disrupting the collective harmony of their organization.
As such, they will be more likely to engage in distancing strategies when those contextual pressures are
present. Overall, these results suggest that national culture plays an important role in understanding how
identity contributes to engagement in religious identity management strategies. Future research, involving a
multitude of different countries, is necessary in order to verify the effects that cultural dimensions have on
identity management.
The relationships found between the antecedent factors and identity management strategies provide
some support that models of identity management can be broadened to include commonly held identities.
As is discussed in the literature on bicultural identification (e.g., LaFramboise et al., 1993; Phinney &
Devich-Navarro, 1997), individuals can make identity management choices that involve distancing from
commonly held identities as well as from less commonly held minority identities. Our findings suggest that
it may not be solely the atypicality of a social identity that leads to affirming/distancing strategies, but rather
the conflict between the social identity in question and one’s professional work identity (i.e., I do not want to
be seen as religious while I am at work). Our results suggest that national culture affected individual tenden-
cies toward disclosure. Thus, when discussing disclosure of invisible social identities, it is important to
consider if such behaviors are culture typical and if the nature of the stigma is one that is incompatible with
a successful work identity in the culture of interest.
In terms of outcomes of identity management strategies, the results of the current study reveal that
engagement in distancing strategies relates to negative outcomes in both the USA and South Korea,
including increased turnover intentions (H8a) and reduced job satisfaction (H8b) and well-being (H8c).
Also, contrary to expectations, the negative effects of distancing did not differ depending on the centrality
of religious identity (H10a–H10c). Therefore, these findings support a major tenet of identity management
theory that hiding a part of one’s self is damaging to the individual (Pachankis, 2007), regardless of how
central the identity is to overall identity. However, contrary to expectations, affirming strategies were only
related to positive outcomes (reduced turnover intentions and increased job satisfaction and well-being;
H9a–H9c) when religious centrality was low (H11a–H11c). This suggests that, although individuals for
whom religion is central to their identity may be motivated to affirm that identity, their job attitudes and
well-being are unrelated to whether or not they actually do affirm their identity. It is individuals with low
religious centrality who experience benefits associated with openly communicating about religion. This
surprising finding is curious and is worth investigating in future research. Overall, it is important to note
DOI: 10.1002/job
that distancing strategies were related to negative (for those high and low in religious centrality) and
affirming strategies were related to positive outcomes (when religious centrality was low). There were no
instances where affirming was related to a negative outcome or distancing was related to a positive outcome.
These results are consistent with previous research (Beals et al., 2009) but are noteworthy in showing that
both positive and negative outcomes accrue for identity management of commonly held identities and across
cultural contexts.
Practical implications
It is important for managers to consider the work environment and cultural context in its openness to a diversity of
religious expression, as it can have an effect on work attitudes and outcomes. Managers should try to foster tolerant
environments in which their employees feel that they can affirm their religion at work, so as to avoid potentially
negative outcomes associated with distancing strategies but also have clear guidelines delineating religious
expression from religious proselytizing. Such efforts must consider the cultural context, however. For example,
developing guidelines delineating open religious expression may be accepted to a greater extent in the USA, where
affirming religious expression is more common, as compared to South Korea, where affirming religious expression
is less common.
Limitations
Even though our research has several strengths including the use of working adult samples from two countries, there
are important limitations to these studies that should be acknowledged. First, the number of affirming, relative to
distancing, incidents in the preliminary study was high, and the means for the reports of identity management
strategies (see Table 2) were high for affirming and low for distancing. This raises the question of self-report bias
or question priming. However, this positivity may be reflective of the general types of interactions encountered
by a commonly held identity.
Second, there are also potential limitations related to the generalizability of our sample to the general Christian
population given the multitude of Christian identity subgroups. Additionally, because most participants in the study
were recruited through religious communities (e.g., churches), it is possible that they might have a higher affiliation
with their Christian identity than those who only nominally identify themselves as Christians and do not belong to
any religious communities. Both of these concerns are somewhat allayed by the inclusion of religious centrality as
an antecedent factor in the model. However, future studies exploring the ways in which Christian identities diverge
between different subgroups, and between the more and less observant, would help to further illuminate research on
Christian identity management.
Third, as a consequence of how data were collected, the majority of South Korean respondents identified as
Presbyterian. As a result, national culture is confounded with religion, and the range of Christian denominations
in South Korea is not represented in our sample (even though Protestants represent the majority of Christians in
South Korea). Future research will benefit from examining if our results would differ if a broader sample of
Christians were used.
Fourth, although we found evidence of strong invariance across the USA and South Korea for our measure
of perceived risks of religious disclosure, we did not find evidence of strict invariance. Future research will
benefit from balancing approaches that explore sources of perceived risks of disclosure specific to certain
countries (an emic approach) with identifying measures of risks of disclosure that are invariant across cultures
(an etic approach).
Finally, the cross-sectional, single-source nature of the design used in the current study makes the casual
interpretations of our results difficult and can introduce common method bias. However, we included
DOI: 10.1002/job
700 B. LYONS ET AL.
participant country as a non-self-report source of information in our design, which lessens the concerns of
common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The results also lessen the concern
of common method bias: It is difficult to account for the significant interactions between the study variables
simply with participant response biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003), and results were generally consistent across
survey methodology (paper and pencil and online). In general, research is needed on the dynamic nature of
identity management across time. Future research should utilize longitudinal designs or conduct experiments
that would be better suited to establish temporal precedence and incorporate multiple data sources to reduce
common method bias.
Future research
Our results offer several potential avenues for future research. For one, we focused on identity management
from the individual actor’s perspective, rather than the individual receiver’s perspective. That is, we did not
explore the potential reactions of co-workers or supervisors to identity management strategies. Although the
prevalence of affirming strategies may indicate that affirming one’s Christian identity is typically well
received, future research could quantitatively examine reactions to affirming strategies, as well as the activa-
tion of positive and negative stereotypes. Indeed, the broader social identity image construction and identity
management literatures lack a cohesive framework for understanding reactions to identity management
strategies, although there are empirical studies that may inform this conceptual development (e.g., Kaiser &
Miller, 2001).
Future research should also examine the generalizability of identity management models to other pervasively
and less pervasively stigmatized religious groups in various cultural contexts, such as Muslims and Jews in
various countries (Asani, 2003). Relational demography would suggest that the perceived experiences of em-
ployees will be influenced by the relative size and status of their specific identity group within a collective
(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Additionally, an important test of the generalizability of identity management
models would be to assess identities that are likely to experience very low levels of stigmatization in the work
context, such as Whites and men in the USA. For example, perhaps organizational pressures for assimilation
or risks of affirmation are so inconsequential for Whites and men in the USA that identity management models
may not hold for such groups.
Conclusion
In the current study, we extended research on identity management (Clair et al., 2005; Ragins, 2008) to Chris-
tians in the USA and South Korea. By doing so, we demonstrated how culture affects how Christian-identified
employees manage their identities at work and the central role that religious centrality plays in influencing
those identity management strategies. We also demonstrated that antecedents (i.e., risks, identity centrality,
and assimilation pressure) and consequences of identity management strategy choices (i.e., turnover intentions,
job satisfaction, and well-being) are similar to those of identity management choices for identities that are less
commonly held. Our findings suggest that organizational scholars can extend research on identity management
to the processes of managing a religious identity as well as other unique social identities (i.e., those that are
belief based and controllable). Moreover, we contribute to the broader understanding of how religion functions
in the workplace across cultural contexts by intersecting the identity management, religion in the workplace,
and cross-cultural psychology literatures.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Author biographies
Brent Lyons is an assistant professor in the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University. He received his
PhD from Michigan State University. His research interests include stigmatization and identity management, diver-
sity issues, and interpersonal mistreatment (e.g., aggression and bullying).
Jennifer Wessel is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Akron. She received her PhD from
Michigan State University. Her research interests include diversity in organizations, identity management/authentic-
ity, and organizational justice/fairness.
Sonia Ghumman is an assistant professor in the Shidler College of Business at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.
She received her PhD from Michigan State University. Her research interests include workplace diversity, religious
discrimination, cross-cultural work issues, and the influence of sleep on workplace behaviors and outcomes.
Ann Marie Ryan is professor of psychology at Michigan State University. She received her PhD from the Univer-
sity of Illinois at Chicago. She is a former president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and
editor of Personnel Psychology. Her research interests include fairness in employee selection, diversity in organiza-
tions, personality assessment, and work-family conflict.
Sooyeol Kim is a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology at Kansas State University. He received his MA
from George Mason University. His research interests include workplace discrimination and diversity issues, occu-
pational stress, fatigue, and recovery.
References
Asani, A. S. (2003). So that you may know one another: A Muslim American reflects on pluralism and Islam. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science Islam: Enduring myths and changing realities, 588, 40–51.
Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of perceived social support,
emotional processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 867–879.
Behuria, A.K. (2004). Sunni–Shia relations in Pakistan: The widening divide. Strategic Analysis, 28, 157–176.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Button, S. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17–28.
Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees. Group & Organization
Management, 29, 470–494.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. (1983). The Michigan organizational assessment survey: Conceptuali-
zation and instrumentation. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational
change: A guide to methods, measures and practices (pp. 71–138) New York: Wiley Interscience.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2007). The world factbook. Retrieved on Sept. 9, 2013 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publica-
tions/the-world-factbook/fields/2119.html
Central Intelligence Agency. (2010). The world factbook. Retrieved on Sept. 9, 2013 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publica-
tions/the-world-factbook/fields/2119.html
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure process model: Understanding disclosure decision making and
postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 236–256.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the work-
place. Academy of Management Review, 30, 78–95.
Creed, D., & Scully, M. (2000). Songs of ourselves: Employees’ deployment of social identity in workplace encounters. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 9, 391–412
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 49, 71–75.
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self- disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. S. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive
identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review 35, 265–293.
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and out-
comes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
DOI: 10.1002/job
702 B. LYONS ET AL.
Gardner, W. L., Peluchette, J. V. E., & Clinebell, S. K. (1998). Valuing women in management an impression management
perspective of gender diversity. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 346–367.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishi, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and
loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–110.
Gloria, A. M., & Robinson-Kurpius, S. E. (1996). The validation of the Cultural Congruity Scale and the University Environment
Scale with Chicano/a students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 533–549.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 1191–1199.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press-Doubleday.
Hewlin, P. F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades of conformity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 727–741.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.
Hout, M., & Fischer, C. (2001). Religious diversity in America, 1940–2000: A century of difference working paper, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved October 1, 2005 from http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/rsfcensus/papers/
Hout_FischerASA.pdf
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American
Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Reacting to impending discrimination: Compensation for prejudice and attributions to
discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1357–1367.
Kim, J. Y., & Nam S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational behavior in Asia.
Organization Science 9, 522–534
Kim, D., Pan, Y. & Park, H. (1998). High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures.
Psychology and Marketing, 15, 507–521.
Kristof, N. D. (2011). Evangelicals without blowhards. Retrieved Sept 16, 2013 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/
sunday/kristof-evangelicals-without-blowhards.html
LaFramboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412
Lee, S. (2007). God’s chosen people: Protestant narratives of Korean American and American national identity. (Doctoral disser-
tation). Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/3783
Lee, T. S. (2009). What should Christians do about a shaman-progenitor? Evangelicals and ethnic nationalism in South Korea.
Church History, 78, 66–98.
Lee, T. S. 2011. A crucial factor in evangelicalism’s success in (South) Korea: Coalescence with nationalism and
anticommunism. Religion Compass, 5/111, 646–655.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Mills, C. (2002). Coming out of the closet: Negotiating spiritual expression in the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17, 183–202.
Marsh, H. W. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation
Modeling, 1, 5–34.
McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (1993). Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the
loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 812–821.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension new evidence from the world value survey. Cross-Cultural
Moran, C. D. (2007). The public identity work of evangelical Christians. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 418–434.
Nasr, V., & Myers, J. J. (2006). The Shia revival: How conflicts within Islam will shape the future. Retrieved from: http://www.
carnegiecouncil.org/studio/transcripts/5400. html/:pf_printable?
Operario, D., & Fiske, S. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group
discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550–561.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective behavioral model.
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328–345.
Park, J. K. (2005). ‘Are you Christian? I’m the other’: the demarcation of Christianity and the other in popular Korean television.
Studies in World Christianity 11, 106–124.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2012). The global religious landscape: A report on the size and distribution of the
world’s major religious groups as of 2010. Retrieved May 14, 2013 at http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-
exec.aspx#geographic
Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican
American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life do-
mains. Academy of Management Review Special Topic: Forum on Stigma and Stigmatization, 33, 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination
against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.
Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Academy Management
Review, 30, 685–711.
Rodin, M., Price, J., Sanchez, F., & McElligot, S. (1989). Derogation, exclusion, and unfair treatment of persons with social
flaws: Controllability of stigma and the attribution of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 439–451.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issue, 50, 19–45.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48, 23–47.
Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 133–140.
Sellers, R., & Shelton, J. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 1079–1092
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional Inventory
of Black identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Sinha, V. (1972). Age differences in self-disclosure. Developmental Psychology, 7, 257–258.
Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F., & Schwartz, S.H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial
behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 188–208.
Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-
views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29, 9–27.
Tarakeshwar, N., Stanton, J., & Pargament, K. I. 2003. Religion: An overlooked dimension in cross-cultural psychology. Journal
of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 377–393.
Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical review of current trends and future directions. The Academy of Manage-
ment Annals, 6, 1–48.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., & Asai, M. L. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on
self-ingroup relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,323–338. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham,
Maryland: Lexington Press.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions,
practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America
and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955–969.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: Review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw, &
R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wong, C., & Tang, C. S. (2004). Coming out experiences and psychological distress of Chinese homosexual men in Hong Kong.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 149–157.
Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social
identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 60–71.
APPENDIX
Items used to assess identity management strategies, affirming and distancing. Items were adapted from Button’s
(2004) identity management inventory to fit religious identity management.
DOI: 10.1002/job
704 B. LYONS ET AL.
Affirming
1. I’ve invited my non-religious coworkers to my home.
2. I look for opportunities to tell my coworkers that I am religious.
3. When a policy or law is discriminatory against people from my religion, I tell people what I think.
4. I let my coworkers know that I’m proud to be a member of my religion.
5. I openly confront others when I hear a remark or joke against my religion.
Distancing
1. I make sure to not wear particular items or display symbols that would identify me as a member of my
religious group.
2. I actively conceal information about myself in order to appear like I do not belong to my religion.
3. I sometimes laugh at jokes about my religion to fit in with my non-religious coworkers
4. I avoid coworkers who frequently discuss religious matters.
5. Rather than answer questions about my weekend, I always try to change the topic of the conversation.
6. I let people know that I find questions about religious beliefs to be inappropriate so that I am not faced with them.
7. I avoid questions about my religious beliefs by never asking others about their religious beliefs.
8. I withdraw from conversations when the topic turns to things like religion or beliefs.
DOI: 10.1002/job

Lyons Et Al 2014 JOB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lyons Et Al 2014 JOB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

35, 678–704 (2014)

Applying models of employee identity management

Received 31 January 2013

Religion in the USA and South Korea

Characteristics of Religious Identity

Antecedents of Religious Identity Management

Figure 1. Pictorial representation of study model

Perceived risks of disclosure

Religious centrality as moderator of contextual effects

National culture as a boundary condition

Outcomes of Religious Identity Management

Religious centrality as moderator of identity management effects

Tests of measurement invariance

Well-being Conﬁgural (baseline) 25.05* 10 0.99 0.98 0.08 (0.04, 0.12)

Antecedents to identity management

Identity management strategies

Outcomes of identity management

Antecedents of identity management

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables.

Table 3a. Distancing identity management strategies as outcomes of antecedents.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Table 3b. Afﬁrming identity management strategies as outcomes of antecedents.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Outcomes of identity management

Low pressure to High pressure to

Low pressure to High pressure to

(b) South Korea

Low pressure to High pressure to

Low pressure to High pressure to

(b) South Korea

Table 4. Outcomes of identity management strategies.

Job satisfaction Well-being

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Low affirming High affirming

Low affirming High affirming

Low affirming High affirming

You might also like